From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 16:49:55 GMT
Subject: Re: git branch --edit-description a custom file
Message-ID: <20191101164955.GA26219@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <822d51af-d522-bf2c-72de-f54a4ccb3b38@gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:29:43PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:

> > > I'd love to see a consensus around putting remote versions of refs/foo under
> > > refs/remote/<remote-name>/foo. To share notes I add a refspec that fetches
> > > to refs/remote/<remote-name>/notes. It is a pain that 'git pull' wont merge
> > > them for me though.
> > 
> > The trouble with that sort of scheme is that it conflicts with the
> > current namespace scheme, which puts the remote "notes" branch in
> > "refs/remotes/<remote-name>/notes". And it's not just a problem if you
> > want to have a branch called "notes". Think about what "git fetch
> > --prune" would do.
> 
> I was suggesting a convention of using refs/remote/ not refs/remotes/ for
> tracking remote refs that are not branches to avoid that problem. It's not
> ideal to have remote branches under a different namespace to all the other
> remote refs but it does avoid breaking current setups. I haven't thought it
> through but perhaps in the long run we could migrate remote branches to
> refs/remote/<remote-name>/heads/ and treat refs/remotes/<remote-name>/ as an
> alias for refs/remote/<remote-name>/heads/. As you say below we'd need to
> think about how to use remote tags as well.

Oh indeed, I totally missed that subtlety. Sorry.

> Thanks for the links, I'll have a read through them.

Maybe I've managed to trick you into working on the greater refs/remotes
organization problem, though. ;)

-Peff